4 ms·

Sure but the thing US politicians are good at doing is by definition the status quo. So we have backed down from "we are in danger of losing democracy" to "the

Sure but the thing US politicians are good at doing is by definition the status quo. So we have backed down from "we are in danger of losing democracy" to "the status quo is bad". I don't disagree that the status quo is bad. There is a lot of hysteria in the media right now about the court. It is doing a lot of things that were avoided for political reasons in the past, and the reasons it isn't avoiding them now are also political. But it's not like it's operating outside of the law. For example Roe v Wade was always on shaky ground legally, it just aligned with people's (and my own) sense of morality so they liked it. If there is massive popular support for nationwide abortion legalization, Congress is free to pass that amendment, the court can't stop them. I am personally pro abortion but also pro Roe v Wade overturn because I think the rule of law is more important than any individual right. I would support an amendment on abortion, but obviously that isn't going to happen because not enough people do. > The first order of business can be to get the Supreme Court to remove the two term limit for President. Erm, can you explain how? There is zero legal basis for this. Supreme Court bad?

OutOfHere 2y ago
> > The first order of business can be to get the Supreme Court to remove the two term limit for President. > Erm, can you explain how? There is zero legal basis for this. Supreme Court bad? It turns out that there is one potential exploitable loophole with a little cooperation from the Supreme Court. It is that after serving two terms, a President could still become Vice President, then the new President would step down, and the Vice President would effectively become President again, now for the third term, repeatable for life. The problem is that there is no explicit term limit for Vice President. The 12th Amendment may grant some unclear protections, but enforcing it as such is up to the Supreme Court.
- pfannkuchen 2y ago
  "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_Unite... How is that unclear?
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    Here is the potential evil interpretation of a biased Supreme Court: The constitutional ineligibility granted by the 22nd Amendment applies only to becoming President by an election. It doesn't apply to becoming President by non-elected means, such as if the Vice President steps down. As such, the applicability of the constitutional eligibility as referred to in the 12th Amendment is subject to interpretation. I am not saying it's right, only that it is sufficient for a biased Supreme Court to exploit it.

OutOfHere 2y ago

> > The first order of business can be to get the Supreme Court to remove the two term limit for President. > Erm, can you explain how? There is zero legal basis for this. Supreme Court bad? It turns out that there is one potential exploitable loophole with a little cooperation from the Supreme Court. It is that after serving two terms, a President could still become Vice President, then the new President would step down, and the Vice President would effectively become President again, now for the third term, repeatable for life. The problem is that there is no explicit term limit for Vice President. The 12th Amendment may grant some unclear protections, but enforcing it as such is up to the Supreme Court.

pfannkuchen 2y ago
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_Unite... How is that unclear?
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  Here is the potential evil interpretation of a biased Supreme Court: The constitutional ineligibility granted by the 22nd Amendment applies only to becoming President by an election. It doesn't apply to becoming President by non-elected means, such as if the Vice President steps down. As such, the applicability of the constitutional eligibility as referred to in the 12th Amendment is subject to interpretation. I am not saying it's right, only that it is sufficient for a biased Supreme Court to exploit it.